Steve Jobs' health has been an important topic of rumours ever since he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in mid-2004. He was treated successfully, and recovered from his ordeal. Ever since then, rumours of possible health problems popped up regularly, which were only ignited further by Apple's recent announcement to drop out of MacWorld San Fransisco, with Steve Jobs not delivering the famous keynote speech coming January. Gizomodo threw a whole lot of oil on the fire today by publishing information which they claim comes from a source which has always been 100% accurate.

The change in stock value wasn't that big. It just looks like a big jump because the stock was relatively flat today, up until that point. Look at it's value over the past week, and today doesn't stand out that much.

People spreading these rumors should be taken out back and shot as a public service, since the rumors aren't likely to help anyone legitimate in a legitimate way.

That being said, Sure, Steve Jobs will die, sooner or later, and it may be sooner than later: he might get run over by an Apple employee on One Infinite Loop tomorrow, for all we know. Hey, it could happen! Then again, in the best reference to Monty Python, "But I'm not dead yet!" is something he keeps uttering (in different words) and people keep on saying "We can't wait until next Thursday!" despite all he does and says.

> That being said, Sure, Steve Jobs will die, sooner
> or later, and it may be sooner than later: he
> might get run over by an Apple employee on
> One Infinite Loop tomorrow, for all we know.

If you get run over by a car on One Infinite Loop Way, you don't actually die cause you never actually get SIGTERM. You just keep getting run over again... and again.... and again... and again... and...

Yay, here we go again with the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/28437017">unsubstantiated rumors about Steve Jobs' health. Are we going to have to endure this same thing every other week for the next 15 years of Jobs' life? And have Gizmodo (and the rest of rumor trigger-happy sites) no shame to turn the hard time in a person's life into a circus? I understand that Steve Jobs is an important part of Apple and Apple is an important part of the tech industry, so the interest in his health is inevitable. But after all the false "reports" I would have thought people would hold off writhing about it unless they have official or at least very, very well corroborated information.

Well... I'm afraid this time it might be for real. I saw Steve Jobs about a week ago. I first I didn't notice it was him: he looked like 20 years older and extremely fat
I'm sorry for him and I really hope he gets better.
I don't think anyone can get a picture of him from the last month or so to prove this (and, of course, I did not take a picture myself either!).
In any case, these are personal matters and I really think we should be discussing about something else.

This modded-to-hell comment raises a valid point. Fat? Every health rumor of the last four years has had to do with his decreasing weight at successive keynote addresses. It would be very strange for him suddenly to gain a lot of weight, and definitely inconsistent with the notion that existing health problems are worsening. Maybe the OP just saw a large balding man in a black turtleneck and jeans.

Anyway, I don't think pulling the plug on MacWorld means anything, except that trade shows and ink-and-paper magazines are dead and January is a terrible time to introduce new products. RD nails it as always:

I really hate vultures circling with avengeance and I also hate PR stunts that try and cover up something that should be no cause for embarrassment to announce, so I do hope all of this is completely false. The latter is something I find very distatesteful and I like to keep downwind when I smell around Apple, because they do quite a bit of it. They're one of the most paranoid companies around, which is a big reason why they don't make as much money as they should. It's one of the things Steve has got wrong and has contributed to.

Say what you like though, but something is wrong. Pancreatic tumours don't have a great survival rate whatever they are and Jobs's physical appearance has definitely declined. Yes, some people say that MacWorld might be deliclining but it doesn't explain why their CEO would not give the final rousing keynote to underline what they've achieved, and MacWorld has definitely produced buzz over the years. In these YouTube times it should still be relevant.

However, the reason why they are paranoid about this is because they know Steve Jobs is effectively Apple. Every other individual or team of people who have tried to guide the company over the years have only succeeded in turning them into a rudderless software company who have turned their hardware business into a total loss with no clue how to turn it around. Only Jobs was capable of coming in and saying "We're doing this, this and this and we need to do this" - exactly as he did in the MacWorld of 1997. They did a deal with Microsoft, but they hardly needed to rely on it to survive.

Only Jobs could look at portable music players and make a huge market out of it where others had failed miserably (and still do), and only Jobs could make a success out of producing a mobile phone that didn't look like another boring, corporate Crackberry no one wanted. Other CEOs would have been spineless and clueless and would have tried to 'partner' with other hardware companies or with Microsoft to put Windows Mobile on it. That's really what is at stake here because Steve is that important. The public and media 'believes' it and will go naturally go overboard on it, and Apple knows it because it's the reality.

Exactly. Apple without Jobs was a complete and utter failure - a lot like the Beatles without John Lennon. Apple may be doing well now but it came VERY close to collapse under Gil Amelio a mere decade ago.

The claim that Jobs was "cured' is nonsense. Cure is not a term used in cancer treatment. They talk about remissions or permanent remission. All pancreatic cancers have a high 5-year mortality rate.

So it is possible that Steve Jobs is feeling very poorly, despite the fact that he may, in fact, be in generally good health.

The sentiment I'm observing is this:

Steve Jobs Alive == Good for Apple

Steve Jobs Dead == Bad for Apple

So, how about "Steve Jobs Comatose"?

If Steve has failed to build a competent management team and to plan for his eventual departure from Apple then he has been a damned poor CEO of Apple. He might have intentionally failed to do just that. Job security ploys do extend up into the CEO range. In fact, the whole "Apple can't live without Steve Jobs" meme may very well have been engineered by Steve Jobs himself.

WOW! I guess there is life on Mars.
...
If you truly believe that Jobs did not build a competent management team, then you haven't been paying attention to Apple's mutltiple successes during the past ten years.

Please learn to read. The linked story, the "read more" commentary from OSNews, and most of the posts under the story title treat the "fact" that Apple is in deep doodoo if they lose Steve Jobs as a foregone conclusion.

I clearly said that *IF* Jobs has not built a team competent to take over when he departs Apple then he's been a poor CEO. Perhaps "negligent" would have been a clearer term.

Personally, I think Apple would probably be OK without him. Though losing a talented, long-time CEO could be expected to have some effect upon any company.

If you truly believe that Jobs did not build a competent management team, then you haven't been paying attention to Apple's mutltiple successes during the past ten years.

I have, and I'm afraid Steve hasn't got anyone to replace him. Everything positive that has happened post-1997 after the years of disaster has all been down to Steve finding Apple's way. The management team prior to 1997 were competent in lots of ways, but they had no idea what to do with Apple.

Pancreatic cancer is, without a doubt, a serioius condition. So is aging.

Errrrr, you cannot compare the two at all. Aging isn't even a comparable. condition for a start.

The thing about cancer is, when you beat it, it makes a strategic retreat to regroup (unlike this season's cold, when you beat it, it's usually gone.)

Regardless of how the Jobs-less apple fared in the past, is there anyone in Apple now who could fill his shoes? Surely he would have been grooming someone to take his place, unless he subscribes to my style of thinking: "I'm surrounded by incompetent lack-wits and sycophants! Nobody can do this but ME!" I honestly think that unless he has a clear successor (probably someone young and idealistic, not an old business man), the Jobs-less Apple will plough into the ground, market-share first. Let's just hope the disillusioned masses who'll stop using Macs go to Linux instead of Windows - If Microsoft suddenly got ALL of Apple's user base, it would be a catastrophe for users in terms of the same vendor-lockin we've seen for years so far. Things could only get worse.

The designs are very heavily influenced by electrical products made in Germany by Braun in the 1960s.

*Pff*
You wouldn't call the Mona Lisa a simple copycat product just because the way portraits were made at that time was heavily influenced by earlier painters.

Just because the original iPod resembles a Braun product, I wouldn't call Apple's design not "original". Since design means more than just the form.

a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made

Resembling something doesn't mean it is a simple copy. You will always find something that was build earlier and resembles some actual product. E. g. the iPhone resembles a smartphone. But an important part of the iPhone's design is the reduction to pure touch input. Where were the sources for a pure touch based phone? Which other phone vendors did it before? Such radical decisions to simplify things is what makes Apples design IMHO unique.

Steve Jobs is my hero. He is one of the great thinkers and do-ers of all time. I love my macbook. It is my friend, my co-worker, my creative ally, and my lover. Seriously -- and I know this is true for so many people.

NO matter what the condition of Steve's health, I wish he would take some other person and teach them what he knows, take them on as his apprentice.

I cannot thank this man enough for what he has given me. My life is far richer, far more wonderful, than it ever would have been without his work. ANd I know there are so many who share this same truth.

Oh come on. He's not a religious icon for cryin out loud. If it's his time to go then it's his time to go. We all die in due time and Apple will no doubt continue. The world will keep spinning and the sun will keep shining. Get over it .. pansy.

My comment was in regards to the comment I replied to, not to Steve Jobs health.

whoops .. my bad .. thought I read all that .. apologies.

It's just kinda stupid how some people can think Apple won't survive without him, and it infuriates me. I've been reading the articles here for quite a long time and only now have I been pushed to actually register to respond to something, and I guess I kinda flew off the handle a bit. I'm blaming the caffeine on this one.

Aside from his family, the only people who should be in love with Steve Jobs, or consider him sort of hero, are people in the advertising industry, etc.

Come on, he's a businessman, Apple is a company, and they offer decent products. And that's fine. His genius is somehow managing to convince people there's more to it, and that's seriously ******* disturbing.

Believing Apple is anything special is exactly the same thing as believing McDonald's is anything more than a pharmacy specializing in laxatives.

No self-respecting person would say they "believed" in McDonald's, that it is a core component of they are.

Aside from his family, the only people who should be in love with Steve Jobs, or consider him sort of hero, are people in the advertising industry, etc.

Come on, he's a businessman, Apple is a company, and they offer decent products. And that's fine. His genius is somehow managing to convince people there's more to it, and that's seriously ******* disturbing.

Believing Apple is anything special is exactly the same thing as believing McDonald's is anything more than a pharmacy specializing in laxatives.

There is a difference between being a creative businessman and being a successfull creative businessman. Jobs is the latter one; he definitely is successfull. As such it is not in any way wrong to idolize him.

You, on the other hand, have somehow cynical view on both Apple/Jobs and McDonald's. So what if McDonald's food is unhealthy? They claim it tastes good and to my opinion it does. Apple claims they do great products with look-and-feel unlike others. To my opinion they do that, too.

I cannot thank this man enough for what he has given me. My life is far richer, far more wonderful, than it ever would have been without his work. ANd I know there are so many who share this same truth.

Were any of you alive before computers came into common use, before the personal computers were invented? I was. These things became better than was ever imagined.

My macbook allows me to easily write, to make music, to design things, and to communicate instantly with people from all over the world.

The usability is far more fluid than anyone ever dreamt possible in the early days of personal computers.

It may be chic to by cynical. If it were not for the incredible people like Steve Jobs, who have great brains and ambition and then use them to create something fantastic beyond anyone's dreams-- that is beyond heroism. That is astounding.

All you naysayer posters -- WHAT is the greatest thing you ever did? Seriously -- what have you invented that has changed the world?

The Apple has changed the world of film, music, writing, and communication. The main thing is that it has given the extremely talented, intelligent people of the world a tool that is on par with their own great minds. It takes a great mind to know how great a mac is.

ANd yes -- my mac loves me back and gives so much to me.

NO, Steve Jobs is not a religious icon. He is an icon of intelligence, creativity, ambition, and caring for the brains of others enough to give them something wonderful and endlessly challenging.

To whoever wrote about McDonald's -- actually, their breakfast sandwiches are pretty darn tasty. Filled with fat and calories, but tasty and filling.

Were any of you alive before computers came into common use, before the personal computers were invented? I was.

1963 here.

These things became better than was ever imagined.

No. AI was supposed to be mature by now.

My macbook allows me to easily write, to make music, to design things, and to communicate instantly with people from all over the world.

My box allows me to do the things I enjoy doing. And it has nothing to do with Mr. Jobs.

The usability is far more fluid than anyone ever dreamt possible in the early days of personal computers.

Ditto.

It may be chic to by cynical.

Not so much cynical, as...

If it were not for the incredible people like Steve Jobs, who have great brains and ambition and then use them to create something fantastic beyond anyone's dreams-- that is beyond heroism. That is astounding.

... pointing out folks who bow down on their knees to worship businessmen like Jobs.

What, exactly, has Steve Jobs invented? He sure didnt invent the Mac. He's not the one doing the designs. He's not the one developing new products. Now doubt he's a good businessman who knows who to hire and how to hype products but he hasn't invented anything.

He may no have invented anything but he definitely played a key role in getting these technologies created and out to the masses. Its the same role that George Lucas plays, he didn't invent a lot of the technologies used in film today, but he played a key role in getting these created in the first place and out to the masses. He didn't create Pixar but without him Pixar wouldn't exist. Steve didn't invent the Apple computer (the Woz did) but he still played a key role in getting it out to the masses, and the necessary funding. His dedication and passion is what made the Mac what it was, he didn't invent the technologies used but he had an eye for detail, had an idea of what he wanted and was able to get other more technically savvy people to do it for him. His influence is still important in that scope because, perhaps the people who put together the technology wouldn't have otherwise, possibly from lack of resources or drive. The fact that Apple is where its at today speaks volume as to his ability. Just like a producers role in the music industry, they don't necessarily play, write, or even perform the music. Their role is to guide the music, choose the best instrument for the job, get the best sound from an artist. The is a highly sought after talent in the music industry and its for a good reason.

I think Jobs' main strength is his keen ability to see markets that others don't and target them with forethought and accuracy.

He (Apple) has gotten away with what nobody else has in the face of the Microsoft juggernaut.
Perhaps he knew what to expect from Gates from early on and simply filled some predictable (for him) niches.
Whatever the case, his success is a singular one - unmatched in terms of countering or sidestepping the Windows monopoly.

Steve Jobs is my hero. He is one of the great thinkers and do-ers of all time. I love my macbook. It is my friend, my co-worker, my creative ally, and my lover. Seriously -- and I know this is true for so many people.

"Steve Jobs is my hero. He is one of the great thinkers and do-ers of all time. I love my macbook. It is my friend, my co-worker, my creative ally, and my lover. Seriously -- and I know this is true for so many people.

I don't believe the situation is so dire at Apple, though Steve Jobs' life may or may not be at risk.

It's been quite a few years since the company returned to being successful and things are different now than in the 1980s. I'd say that the company is in a more favourable position than when Steve Jobs was ousted by Mr. Pepsi(John Sculley), who helped run the company into the ground also. Would Steve Jobs have died during the rebuilding phase, Apple probably wouldn't have survived.

Apple need someone to drive them and that person needs enthusiasm and vision and we know from watching other companies that those kinds of people are few.

In any case, if people are just trying to manipulate the stock price, shame on them and good luck to Steve Jobs.

Well, Bill Gates died during his tenure with Microsoft, and later stepped down as CEO. No one seemed to care. In fact, Microsoft has managed to survive with the inimitable buffoon Steve Ballmer as CEO.

Well, Bill Gates died during his tenure with Microsoft, and later stepped down as CEO. No one seemed to care. In fact, Microsoft has managed to survive with the inimitable buffoon Steve Ballmer as CEO.

He died? Perhaps, his limited vision (apart from money) died. So yes, no one seemed to care as he became less important because he brought nothing to the company past the marketing.

Microsoft is a mess and, like General Motors, has continued because it's too chaotic to just shut down.

Most people don't buy their products because they want them. They buy because they're afraid of the alternatives.

Microsoft is a mess and, like General Motors, has continued because it's too chaotic to just shut down.

Most people don't buy their products because they want them. They buy because they're afraid of the alternatives.

Not even close to true. MSFT might be a "mess" but the state of MSFT isn't even comparable to GM. MSFT has continued because it's profitable and no amount of MSFT hate/bashing/trolling is going to change that.

Most people buy their products for many reasons but at the end of the day people buy it because they need and by extension want it. Here's a few reasons why: 1) Costs of moving to alternatives are too high, 2) Required software is not available for said alternatives, and 3) People are as you said afraid of the alternatives.

Another more hidden cause is the chicken-and-egg problem of MSFT's ubiquity, particularly in the workplace. It's everywhere and if you have a desk job (at least in the US) you're expected to be able to use Windows.

But the real winner is cost. It doesn't matter if Linux is free if the software you need to use doesn't exist for it or your workforce has no idea how to use it or your existing infrastructure is MSFT based. Windows is just a tool and in many ways it doesn't matter if you like or dislike it as long as you can use it. Since those relatively few of us who recognize its failings and why it's /technically/ inferior to the alternatives can still use it, businesses and OEMs don't really care and will keep forcing it on us.

Apple sees and understands all these reasons and has been successful NOT because a desire for alternatives exists, but because they CREATED a desire for an alternative. Apple's real strength isn't its superior products but its superior psychology. Jobs is part of this psychology and thus an important part of Apple's strength as a company.

I find this amazing because I see Mac's popping up all over creation, I have heard of more people converting over to a Mac and I think the best of all is the Mac commercial demonstrating UAC with Windows and the secret service guy asking him if it is ok to speak and all.

> I find this amazing because I see Mac's popping up
> all over creation, I have heard of more people
> converting over to a Mac...

Truth be known though, Mac sales are actually down sharply right now compared to PC sales--the lowest they have been in 5 years.

With the global economy in the tank, people are buying $300 budget PCs and skipping the more expensive stuff. This is a market Apple has always ignored, so economic downturns hurt Apple more than they do most other computer companies.

I can't believe that people think that they need to comment on Jobs health, like you do Thom. The matter of the fact is that anyone has got any proof on what the situation of Jobs is.

Gizmodo dudes have no clue on what they are talking about, why should we believe them, and their supposed reliable source. The same guy who said that Jobs had an heart attack few weeks ago has also said that his informations were based on reliable source. This is the same and the same again, some poor mentally formed people think that they can spread fud and unfortunately, there are other people to take over their biased informations.

Now the fact is, Jobs has already several times made clear that he was fine, he did it two times during his last two public appearances. He did also sent a personal letter to a blogger at the New York Times who used to spread the same sort of fud on Jobs health where he made clear that he was fine.

Why should we not believe him? Why would Apple lie? It makes zero sense for Apple to lie on Jobs health, that would hurt it later.

Jim Goldman from CNBC has contacted Apple on the matter (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28437017 ) and he has been told what everyone is expecting: the reasons for Apple leaving Macworld and the absence of Jobs for the last Keynote are what it has been known for. Why should we believe the garbage of Gizmodo and not the report of a real journalist?

I don't know if Jobs is sick or not, at the end of the day, it matters a little. But for God sake, those ridiculous speculations are meaningless.

Instead of losing time Thom on writing about the garbage report of irresponsible people, you better do your job. Talk about technology, this is the purpose of this site, not speculating on someone's health and spreading your meaningless comments.

"The matter of the fact is that anyone has got any proof on what the situation of Jobs is.

The jobs situation is bad. "

I modded this as funny specifically for that last bit here, but after thinking about it there really isn't much humor in this. Like it or not for Apple, but the Jobs situation is bad if the major news regarding this tech corporation is the health of their CEO. It indicates the market (or at least the money men and stock brokers) have no confidence in Apple's capabilities and think it only a one-trick-pony.

I also agree with the comment made elsewhere, (perhaps even by you?) that Jobs may have deliberately worked to eliminate any possible successors as a way to avoid being thrown out of Apple like he was previously. If so--this was a very short-sighted move on his part, and I hope he will get to work on correcting the situation as soon as humanly possible. Otherwise, regardless of how well Apple is or isn't able to survive or even thrive after Steve Jobs is gone, the market panic at his loss will kill the company before the rest of its workers even get a chance to demonstrate their capabilities.

--bornagainpenguin

PS: When is OSNews.com ever going to fix the nested comments situation?